JFK - Dove?

[NWO Sentryman]

Was JFK a secret dove that would end vietnam and the cold war?

Oh, you mean JFK, the guy who was discussing detente with the Soviets, talked with Castro in '63 about improving relations since their animosity was going nowhere, and proposed a joint-moon shot between the US and USSR as a sign of cooperation? The Kennedy who avoided invading Cuba when others (and the hawks) would have invaded? A Kennedy whose plans to withdrawal, while beginning as a sign of frustration with Diem, were still on the books after Diem was assassinated and who had discussed withdrawal and disengagement from Vietnam following the 1964 election because of fear of a Second Korean war (and, as less than a third of the American public paid attention to Vietnam back then, and he kept information vague, he could afford such an action)? The Kennedy who, while never a hawk, became less hawkish over the coarse of his administration (Norton's Law # 18)? Yes, ... trusting history, and what the people who knew Kennedy reported

 

[GreNME]

Was JFK a secret dove that would end vietnam and the cold war?

I don't know whose words you're quoting, but that's an awful lot of historical revisionism going on. It's pretty well accepted that Kennedy was fairly hawkish, particularly when it came to the Soviets. His moves creating aspirations in the nation for making it to the moon before the decade was done-- and, quite pointedly, before the USSR-- give exactly the opposite impression to the idea he was willing to cooperate to make it happen. People seem to regularly make the post-hoc arguments about Kennedy's reservations over Vietnam, but he was the guy who increased the number of American forces over there. As for Castro, considering his administration's call for Cubans to stand up against the dictator (though he subsequently failed to provide back-up, something many Cuban-Americans have not forgotten) seems to speak against his probability of improving relations.

Kennedy was a Progressive of the time, but that shouldn't be mistaken for a possible similar relative level of Progressivism today-- there was plenty of Commie-hate on both ends of the U.S. political spectrum of the 1950's and 1960's.

 

[Epok]

And whats this about avoiding the invasion of Cube? Is that a revisionist account of the Bay of Pigs?

 

[Cicero]

We don't know that to be true at all. That is Oliver Stone's wishful thinking. NSAM 263 was about removing 1000 troops by the end of 1963, IF "the U.S. program for training Vietnamese should have progressed to the point where 1,000 U.S. military personnel assigned to South Vietnam can be withdrawn." JFK didn't release this information obviously because he had no way of guaranteeing that the South Vietnamese could defend their own country without the 25,000 American military "advisers" in country.

Those who continue to believe that JFK was truly going to get the U.S. out of Vietnam always cite this first half of JFK's September, 1963 answer:

" I don't think that unless a greater effort is made by the Government to win popular support that the war can be won out there. In the final analysis, it is their war. They are the ones who have to win it or lose it."

But they omit the second part:

" . . . in the final analysis it is the people and the Government [of South Vietnam] itself who have to win or lose this struggle. All we can do is help, and we are making it very clear. But I don't agree with those who say we should withdraw. That would be a great mistake. I know people don't like Americans to be engaged in this kind of an effort. Forty-seven Americans have been killed in combat with the enemy, but this is a very important struggle even though it is far away. "

Before he was assassinated, JFK was on his way to the Dallas Trade Mart to give a speech that was unequivocal about his intentions to stay in Vietnam.

"But American military might should not and need not stand alone against the ambitions of international communism. Our security and strength, in the last analysis, directly depend on the security and strength of others, and that is why our military and economic assistance plays such a key role in enabling those who live on the periphery of the Communist world to maintain their independence of choice. Our assistance to these nations can be painful, risky and costly, as is true in Southeast Asia today. But we dare not weary of the task. For our assistance makes possible the stationing of 3.5 million allied troops along the Communist frontier at one-tenth the cost of maintaining a comparable number of American soldiers. A successful Communist breakthrough in these areas, necessitating direct United States intervention, would cost us several times as much as our entire foreign aid program, and might cost us heavily in American lives as well." JFK November 22, 1963

The following year, RFK discussed his brother's feelings on the Vietnam issue in an interview with John Bartlow Martin.


RFK: "The President . . . had a strong, overwhelming reason for being in Vietnam and [believing] that we should win the war in Vietnam."


MARTIN: "What was the overwhelming reason?"


RFK: "Just the loss of all of Southeast Asia if you lost Vietnam. I think everybody was quite clear that the rest of Southeast Asia would fall."


MARTIN: "What if it did?"

RFK: "[It would just] have profound effects as far as our position throughout the world, and our position in a rather vital part of the world. Also, it would affect what happened in India, of course, which in turn has an effect on the Middle East. Just, it would have, everybody felt, a very adverse effect. It would have an effect on Indonesia, [with a] hundred million population. All of these countries would be affected by the fall of Vietnam to the Communists, particularly as we had made such a fuss in the United States both under President Eisenhower and President Kennedy about the preservation of the integrity of Vietnam.

MARTIN: "There was never any consideration given to pulling out?"

RFK: "No."

The civil war in South Vietnam was certainly in full swing. JFK gave the green light to the CIA backed coup against Diem on November 2, 1963. That's 20 days before JFK was assassinated. Does that sound like a President who is interested in extricating the U.S. from South Vietnam anytime soon, or a President who is gung-ho about the fate of South Vietnam?